Comments (10)

Hi David - is there a strong named version of WebActivator available yet?

I read through the thread you reference, however, there doesn't seem to be a conclusion.

One of the packages I downloaded from NuGet (DataAnnotationExtensions) depends on WebActivator, but my project is strong named, therefore will not build because of the dependency on WebActivator. Is there a strong named version of WebActivator available yet? Or do I need to download and it build it myself, negating any value I'm getting from NuGet?

Sorry for the lack of response. I don't seem to get email notifications even thoug hI have that turned on :(

That same codeplex thread (http://nuget.codeplex.com/discussions/247827) has picked up again. I think we really need to think about getting the auto-signing mechanism in place in NuGet. Just signing WebActivator is not the right answer as it causes more problems than it solves.

@David Ebbo - I think this is pretty simple - regardless of people's opinions on strong naming or the future features of NuGet, strong naming is a feature that's in the framework and people use it. If I'm strong naming my assemblies (which I am), any libraries that I depend on must also be strong named. Focusing on the specific case for WebActivator, not having a signed assembly makes it harder for me to use it (since I need to download/compile it myself) and impossible to use via NuGet. WebActivator should have a strong named assembly.

For the broader case, NuGet needs to support usage by signed and non-signed projects, however that ends up being implemented (including both signed and unsigned versions in the package, auto-signing etc...).